> > My whole point is that a corp is an institutionalized version of Mr
> > Moneybags, and both will behave in pretty similar fashion. I don't
> > understand what the corp personhood crowd sees as an alternative to
> > the corporate form. If it's some sort of semi-socialized hybrid form,
> > in which public benefit somehow is supposed to co-exist with profit
> > maximization, then we're not talking legal reform, we're talking
> > serious political transformation. I don't think the personhood people
> > really understand this.
> >
> > Doug
>
>
>One of my favorite quotations from Baran and Sweezy's classic, _Monopoly
>Capital_, says that the modern big business corporation is simply a better,
>more rational capitalist, with immensely greater knowledge and much longer
>time horizons.
>
>The personhood attackers are kind of like the "Let's count social costs in
>GDP" folks. Super idea, with no chance of actually happening, barring a
>revolution.
I don't understand the hostility to this idea. Overturning the non-existent ruling that corporations are persons does not change the form of the corporation it would still suck but at least it would be easier to regulate. Nathan has explained it rather well and all of the words written in opposition seem to focus on the motivations of the individuals involved in the movement, such as it is. Who cares if they think the corporate form can be made to work splendidly and that the 19th century was wonderful? All I want from them is the work they do towards a very specific end that should have positive results and perhaps make a more progressive end result more feasible. If corporations do not have the same rights as people we might be a step closer to a welfare state similar to Germany or Sweden. Not necessary the end result most of this list wants but certainly a damn site better than what we have.
John Thornton